FACTS

On July 17, 1985, a riot broke out in the village of Karamchedu in Andhra Pradesh. The riot resulted in the death of five people and the injury of twenty others. In the aftermath of the riot, the police arrested 94 people, including the appellants in the case on July 19, 1985. They were produced before the Third Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala on July 20, 1985. They were initially remanded to judicial custody for a period of 15 days and thereafter the remand was extended from time to time till October 18, 1985. The investigating officer filed a charge-sheet in the case on October 17, 1985, that being the 90th day of remand. Even so, the appellants filed a petition before the Magistrate and sought enlargement on bail in terms of Section 167(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate, overruling the objection of the State, granted bail to the appellants on the ground that the period of 90 days stipulated in the proviso had to be reckoned from the date of arrest and not from the date of remand and so computed the charge-sheet had not been filed on the 90th day but on the 91st day and hence the accused were entitled to bail. The State challenged the magistrate’s order of the bail by means of a petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court. The High Court allowed the State’s petition and therefore, cancelled the bail and directed the magistrate to issue warrants of arrest for the appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the correctness of the order.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the period of 90 days envisaged by the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure begins to run from the date of arrest or from the date of the order of remand?
Whether the police can keep an accused person in custody for more than 90 days without charging them with a crime?
Whether the magistrate has the power to grant bail to an accused person who has been in police custody for more than 90 days?
Whether the High Court can review the magistrate’s order of bail?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioners argued that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was clear and unambiguous. They argued that the proviso states that “where a person accused of an offence is in custody and the investigation cannot be completed within the period of fifteen days, the Magistrate may, on the application of the police officer, authorise the detention of the accused person in custody for a further period not exceeding fifteen days, on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.”

They argued that the word “where” in the proviso shows that the period of 90 days begins to run from the date of arrest and not from the date of the order of remand. They also argued that the word “further” in the proviso shows that the period of 90 days is in addition to the initial period of 15 days.

They further argued that the magistrate does not have the power to grant remand to police custody for a period of more than 90 days. The petitioners argued that the power to grant remand is vested in the magistrate under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the proviso to Section 167(2) limits the magistrate’s power to grant remand to a period of 90 days.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents argued that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not clear and unambiguous. The proviso states that “where a person accused of an offence is in custody and the investigation cannot be completed within the period of fifteen days, the Magistrate may, on the application of the police officer, authorise the detention of the accused person in custody for a further period not exceeding fifteen days, on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.”

They argued that the word “where” in the proviso does not show that the period of 90 days begins to run from the date of arrest. They also argued that the word “further” in the proviso does not show that the period of 90 days is in addition to the initial period of 15 days.

They further argued that the magistrate has the power to grant remand to police custody for a period of more than 90 days. They argued that the power to grant remand is vested in the magistrate under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also argued that the proviso to Section 167(2) does not limit the magistrate’s power to grant remand to a period of 90 days.

JUDGEMENT

The case was decided by a bench of three judges of the Supreme Court of India. The judges were: Justice R.S. Pathak, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice D.A. Desai.

The judgment was delivered by Justice R.S. Pathak.

The ratio decendi in the case is as follows:

The period of 90 days envisaged by the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would commence only from the date of remand and not from any anterior date, irrespective of the fact that the accused might have been in police custody prior to the date of remand.
The fact that the accused might have been in police custody prior to the date of remand would not be a ground for extending the period of 90 days.
The only exception to this rule would be where the accused is in judicial custody for a continuous period of 90 days. In such a case, the period of judicial custody would be added to the period of police custody and the total period would not exceed 90 days.
The period of 90 days envisaged by the proviso to Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a maximum period and not a minimum period. This means that the accused can be released on bail even if the investigation is not complete within 90 days. The court also held that the period of 90 days would commence only from the date of remand and not from any anterior date. This means that the accused cannot be kept in police custody for a period of more than 90 days, even if they were arrested prior to the date of remand.
The proviso to Section 167(2) is a mandatory provision and that the Magistrate cannot exercise his discretion to grant bail to an accused who has been in police custody for a period of 90 days, even if he is satisfied that there are no grounds for believing that the accused has committed the offence.
The period of 90 days will be computed from the date of the first remand order and not from the date of the first arrest. This is because the proviso to Section 167(2) is concerned with the period of time that an accused can be kept in police custody, and not with the period of time that an accused can be kept in judicial custody.
The proviso to Section 167(2) is a substantive provision and not a procedural one and, therefore, it must be construed strictly. The Court also held that the object of the proviso is to protect the accused from being unnecessarily detained in police custody and, therefore, the period of 90 days should be computed from the date of remand and not from any anterior date.

In the result, The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ contentions. The judgment of the High Court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

CONCLUSION

The case is a landmark decision that has had a significant impact on the law of bail in India. The Court’s decision has been followed by a number of High courts in India and has also been cited by the Supreme Court of India in several cases. It is now a well-settled law that the period of 90 days for the purpose of granting default bail shall commence only from the date of remand. This means that an accused person cannot be kept in police custody for more than 90 days, even if they have not been charged with a crime.

The decision ensures that the accused’s right to a speedy trial is not violated and that they are not unduly prejudiced by the length of time that they have been in custody. Moreover, the accused is entitled to the right to be released on bail if they have been in custody for a period of time that is considered to be excessive.

The decision is an important safeguard against the abuse of police power. They must either complete their investigation within 90 days or release the accused on bail. It ensures that an accused person cannot be kept in police custody for an indefinite period of time. This is significant because it protects the fundamental right to personal liberty.

The decision is a reminder that the law must always be interpreted in a way that protects the rights of the accused. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they must be given every opportunity to defend themselves. It is a significant step in ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected in India.

written by Aditi Ananya intern under legal vidhiya